In recent discussions about the Women’s Reservation Bill for setting a quota of seats aside for women in India’s legislative bodies, the concepts of justice and equality have been invoked frequently. The need for a quota, whether it goes far enough, and other issues have been debated. Some political leaders have also demanded that women from the Other Backward Classes (OBC) be introduced within this. But given that India has long held socialist principles and welfare schemes to be an important part of the government’s official policy, it has been generally agreed upon that the upliftment of historically marginalised groups such as women should be an area of focus for the state. A statement in the recently conducted UPSC Civil Service Examinations’ Mains papers had an Essay writing prompt statement, which said: “A society that has more justice is a society that needs less charity.” In this regard, we take a look at another quote that talks about these ideas and the questions such statements raise about social justice. What does the aforementioned quote mean? “The opposite of poverty is not wealth, but justice” is taken from a TED speech from American human rights lawyer and activist Bryan Stevenson. Stevenson worked with and spoke about America's justice system and highlighted massive imbalance along racial lines: a third of the country's black male population has been incarcerated at some point in their lives. Stevenson said that he believed when he argued for the cases of people sentenced to death and of others in jail, that people should not be judged on the basis of the worst thing they did. If someone steals, they are not just a thief. But in the system, as it exists, it is possible that one is treated better if they are rich and guilty than poor and innocent. “Wealth, and not culpability, shapes outcomes,” he said. Through his speech, he points out that sometimes, the system is designed to be more unforgiving towards a group of people for their race, for instance. Therefore, societal grievances such as poverty are not always a result of individual failures, but the failure of systems like educational institutions, the medical sector, jails, etc. to not let people fall into a state of poverty. So what does this argument say about achieving justice? What this quote essentially puts forward is that too often, poverty and marginalisation are seen narrowly. It might be true, in a literal sense, that poverty is the opposite of wealth, but the real-world consequences and factors affecting it are not as simple. Poverty can be something people are born into with no role of their own to play in their circumstances, it can also be more likely for people belonging to certain castes, genders, ethnic groups and so on. So how can it be addressed, then? One way is to focus on groups that data proves are more vulnerable to getting trapped in a cycle of poverty, due to a historical and continued lack of opportunities, knowledge and resources. This is also called intersectionality – the different roles that different aspects of our identities play in shaping our lives. The experience of a man with the criminal justice system will be different to that of a woman, and this would further vary based on other factors such as the caste they belong to, their religious identities, whether they are educated, etc. In that way, the opposite of poverty or systemic neglect of vulnerable groups would not be as simple as enriching them in a monetary sense. That would actually not solve the inherent problem, which is one of injustice towards them. Only once they are treated equally and justly, given the resources and platforms they have so far been denied access to, can they truly become free from poverty. For example, former civil servant Amarjeet Sinha wrote in The Indian Express in 2022, that despite the delay in its release, the Socioeconomic and Caste Census (SECC) and its 2011 data helped identify relevant beneficiaries of government welfare schemes. Since deprivation was the key criterion in identifying beneficiaries, Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe communities got higher coverage and the erstwhile backward regions in Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh, Jharkhand, Odisha, Chhattisgarh, Assam, Rajasthan and rural Maharashtra got a larger share of the benefits. “This was a game-changer in the efforts to ensure balanced development, socially as well as across regions,” he wrote. In this way, through a specialised focus on these groups, they were empowered. Further, as Stevenson also suggested, on an individual level, what might be needed is simple empathy towards understanding why someone committed certain actions and whether the price they pay for them can be considered fair. Only in doing so will we challenge the existing norms that too often dehumanise other people, and be able to get a new outlook on possible solutions to age-old issues in society.
